initial study/mitigated negative declaration alston … · initial study/mitigated negative...

65
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS DAIRY NO. 2 TEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Alston Farms Prepared by VESTRA Resources, Inc. 5300 Aviation Drive Redding, California 96002 FEBRUARY 2009

Upload: tranhuong

Post on 04-May-2018

240 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS DAIRY NO. 2

TEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for

Alston Farms

Prepared by

VESTRA Resources, Inc. 5300 Aviation Drive

Redding, California 96002

FEBRUARY 2009

Page 2: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS DAIRY NO. 2

TEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for

Alston Farms

Prepared by

VESTRA Resources, Inc. 5300 Aviation Drive

Redding, California 96002

70824

FEBRUARY 2009

Page 3: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I PROJECT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................................ 1 II DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL ACTION BEING CONSIDERED ........................................................ 8 III ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED......................................................... 9 IV ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................ 10 V PROJECT MONITORING ........................................................................................................................ 37 VI MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... 38 VII DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ................................................................................... 40 VIII GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................... 41 TABLES

1 Criteria Air Pollutants, Summary of Common Sources and Effects .................................. 14 2 Summary of Ambient Air Quality Standards .......................................................................... 15 3 Thresholds of Significance......................................................................................................... 16 4 Well Sample Data ........................................................................................................................ 27 5 Well Information Within 2,000 Feet ........................................................................................ 28 FIGURES

1 General Site Location 2 USGS Topographic Map 3 Wells Located Within 2,000 Feet 4 Zoning 5 Existing General Plan 6 Proposed General Plan 7a Site Plan A 7b Site Plan and Monitoring Well Locations 8 Soils 9 Average Annual Minimum and Maximum Temperatures 10 Average Annual Precipitation and Evapotranspiration 11 CNDDB Occurrence 12 Hydrology and FEMA Flood Data 13 DWR Groundwater Contour Map 14 Prime Farmland 15 Well Locations

APPENDICES A Laboratory Analytical Results

B Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling Plan

Page 4: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

I. PROJECT INFORMATION PROJECT NAME

Alston Farms Dairy No. 2 Tehama County, California

LEAD AGENCY UNDER CEQA

California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114 Phone: (916) 464-3291 Fax: (916) 464-4645 Contact Person: Charlene Herbst

CONTACT PERSON

Ms. Linda Alston 1010 Highway 99W

Orland, CA 95963 (530) 864-6685 PROJECT HISTORY Alston Farms wishes to reopen a grade A dairy located at 22954 Christian Road in Orland, California. The dairy closed in 2002. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has required that the dairy be permitted as a “new” facility and receive individual Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). All appurtenances for the dairy are in place. Cattle have grazed onsite pastures under lease since 2002. SITE LOCATION The Alston Farms Dairy No. 2 is located at 22954 Christian Road, approximately 4.5 miles north of the city of Orland in Tehama County, California. The dairy is located in portions of Sections 23, 26, and 27, Township 23N, Range 03W, MDBM, as shown in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Orland 7.5-minute topographic map, Orland quadrangle. The site coordinates are latitude 39�40’21.04” and longitude 122�10’30.16.” The general site location is included as Figure 1. The USGS topographic map is included as Figure 2. Identified domestic, irrigation, municipal supply, and monitoring wells located within 2,000 feet of the site are shown on Figure 3. ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION The project site is zoned as Exclusive Agriculture or Upland Agriculture as shown on Figure 4. The existing Tehama County General Plan (Figure 5) has identified the land use of the project

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 1

Page 5: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

!

!

!

!

!

£ ¤44

£ ¤36

£ ¤70

£ ¤99

£ ¤32

£ ¤5

£ ¤3£ ¤29

9

£ ¤89

£ ¤147

£ ¤273

£ ¤172

£ ¤45

£ ¤191

£ ¤299

£ ¤44

£ ¤89

£ ¤36

£ ¤5

£ ¤273

Chic

o

Redd

ing

Corn

ing

Red

Bluf

f

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

GEN

ERA

L SI

TE L

OCA

TIO

N

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e1_G

ener

alS

iteLo

catio

n.m

xd

Hig

hway

Rive

r

Alst

on D

airy

Sit

e Lo

cati

on

Lake

, Po

nd,

or R

eser

voir

FIG

URE

1

SITE

LO

CATI

ON

010

205

Mile

s

Page 6: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

USG

S TO

POG

RAPH

IC M

AP

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e2_U

SG

S-T

opo.

mxd

Proj

ect

Boun

dary

FIG

URE

2

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

SOU

RCE:

USG

S 7.

5' T

OPO

GRA

PHIC

MAP

, KI

RKW

OO

D Q

UAD

RAN

GLE

Page 7: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

!!

!

! !

!

ALSTON DAIRYTEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

WELLS LOCATEDWITHIN 2,000 FEET

P:\GIS\70824\Figures\70824_Figure3_2000FootWells.mxd

! Well LocationProject Boundary

0 1,000 2,000500Feet

SOURCE: NAIP 2005

FIGURE 3

Page 8: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

ZON

ING

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e4_Z

onin

g.m

xd

Proj

ect

Boun

dary

Excl

usiv

e Ag

ricu

ltur

e

Upl

and

Agri

cult

ure

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

SOU

RCE:

NAI

P 20

05;

TEH

AMA

COU

NTY

200

5

FIG

URE

4

Page 9: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

EXIS

TIN

G G

ENER

AL

PLA

N

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e5_G

P.m

xd

Proj

ect

Boun

dary

Crop

land

Gra

zing

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

SOU

RCE:

NAI

P 20

05;

TEH

AMA

COU

NTY

200

5

FIG

URE

5

Page 10: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

area as Cropland and Grazing. The proposed General Plan would designate the site as Valley Floor Agriculture (Figure 6). The project site would continue to be used for agricultural purposes under the proposed project. SITE CONDITIONS

Developments

The site is currently developed as a dairy and includes freestall barns, milking parlor, feed and storage building, wastewater storage lagoon, cropland, and irrigation systems. A residence is also located at the site. A site plan is shown on Figures 7a and 7b. The class A dairy operated at the site from 1976 to 2002. The dairy operation closed in 2002; however, the croplands continued to be irrigated using onsite wells and were leased for cattle grazing. The residence has been inhabited continuously. Vegetation The two vegetation types that were identified with the CALVEG database were California annual grasslands and croplands. Annual grasslands are the most dominant vegetation community occurring within the project area. Cropland onsite includes wheat, oats, and sudan hay. In addition to these two mapped types of vegetation, a third vegetation type, Fremont cottonwood series, was identified during reconnaissance surveys in the riparian area along the creeks. These vegetation communities are described below. Annual Grasslands Annual grassland habitat occurs across most of California, especially in the lower elevation foothills much like the area surrounding the project site. This habitat has a moderate to dense herbaceous layer composed mostly of annual grasses and forbs. Common species of northern California foothill grasslands include: Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), and soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus). These annual grasslands are generally made up of introduced annual grasses and both native and introduced forbs. They exist in elevations below blue oak (Quercus douglasii) woodlands, where soil conditions do not favor other hardwood growth, or as openings in blue oak woodlands. Decades of ranching, agricultural use, and drought periods have nearly converted all of California’s dry upland from perennial bunchgrass-dominated grasslands to an annual system dominated by grasses and forbs. Croplands Croplands on the dairy include irrigated pasture, wheat, oats, and sudan hay. Fremont Cottonwood Series The Fremont cottonwood series riparian zone occurs in areas along agricultural ditches and drainages. The riparian corridor is composed mostly of winter deciduous trees including, but not limited to, cottonwoods (Populus spp.) and willows (Salix spp.). There is a dense understory layer of grasses, sedges, rushes (Juncus spp.), and numerous other woody plants. These woody

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 2

Page 11: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

PRO

POSE

D G

ENER

AL

PLA

N

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e6_P

ropo

sedG

P.m

xd

Vall

ey F

loor

Ag

Vall

ey F

loor

Ag/

Capa

yPr

ojec

t Bo

unda

ry

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

SOU

RCE:

NAI

P 20

05;

TEH

AMA

COU

NTY

200

8

FIG

URE

6

Page 12: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

A

!C

A

Manure WaterPasture

TailwaterPond

Waste WaterLagoon

Not IrrigatedDry Manure

Oats

Not IrrigatedNo Manure

Fresh WaterDry Manure

Oats andSudan Hay

Not IrrigatedNo Manure

Fresh WaterDry Manure

Wheat

Fresh WaterDry Manure

Wheat

Fresh WaterDry Manure

Wheat

Dry ManurePasture

Dry ManureWheat

Not IrrigatedNo Manure

Fresh WaterDry Manure

Pasture

Teham

a Colusa C

anal

Moore Creek

Sour Grass Creek

Oats

Manure WaterPasture

3 G 64.7 acres

2 E 73.3 acres

John 2 45.6 acres

John 3 28.2 acres

1 B 21.2 acres

3 I 67.1 acres

3 H 27.5 acres

2 F 69.8 acres

4 J 17.7 acres

John 1 52.9 acres

John4 10.5acres

1 C 18.3 acres1 A 58.4 acres

2 D 15.7acres

089-230-05-1

089-300-14-1

089-300-13-1

089-290-19-1

089-300-03-1

ALSTON DAIRYTEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

SITE PLAN A

P:\GIS\70824\Figures\70824_Figure7A_SitePlan.mxd

!C Pump

A Well

Flow Direction

Milking Parlor WashwaterTailwater

Abandoned ResidenceFreestall BarnHay Storage

Milking ComplexOld Dilapidated Barn

ResidenceShopProject Boundary

Field Boundary Leased from Elsie Sewald

Original Alston Dairy Property (John Alston)Tailwater Collection AreaParcel Boundary

0 700 1,400350Feet

SOURCE: NAIP 2005

FIGURE 7A

Page 13: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

A

!C

!P

!P

!P1

2

3

ALSTON DAIRYTEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

SITE PLAN AND MONITORINGWELL LOCATIONS

P:\GIS\70824\Figures\70824_Figure7B_SitePlan.mxd

!P Monitoring Well

!C Pump

A Well

TailwaterMilking Parlor Washwater

Surface Water Flow Direction

Area Draining To Tailwater PondPond

Tailwater Pond

Abandoned Residence

Freestall BarnHay Storage

Milking Complex

Abandoned Natural Gas Facility

Old Dilapidated BarnResidence

ShopProject Boundary

0 170 34085Feet

SOURCE: NAIP 2005

FIGURE 7B

Probable Ground Water Flow

Page 14: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

plants include, but are not limited to, wild grape (Vitis californica), wild rose (Rosa californica), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Soils According to the Tehama County Soil Survey, the project area includes seven different soil types as shown on Figure 8. These include:

� Kimball loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (KpA): Areas of soil are quite variable in size and shape. The surface is smooth. The soil is well drained. There is no erosion hazard. The subsoil of dense clay is at a depth of 10 to 20 inches and is penetrated slowly by roots and water.

� Corning-Newville gravelly loams, 3 to 10 percent slopes, eroded (CxB2): This complex consists of Corning gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, and Newville gravelly loam, 3 to 10 percent slopes, eroded. Either soil may occupy 20 to 80 percent of the area.

Corning gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, has an uneven surface because of small drainage-ways that cut through most of the area. Most of the short drainage-ways are cut by gullies, which generally can be crossed with equipment used for cultivation. Because of a claypan in the subsoil, permeability is slow.

Newville gravelly loam, 3 to 10 percent slopes, eroded, are the less steep of the Newville Series. The soils are well-drained, permeability is slow, the available water-holding capacity is low, runoff is medium, and the erosion hazard is moderate. The clay subsoil, at a depth of 10 to 20 inches, is slowly penetrated by roots and water.

� Cortina very gravelly fine sandy loam (Czs): Soil is in fairly small areas. It is 50 to 90 percent gravel by volume. Drainage is excessive, runoff is very slow, and permeability is very rapid. The available water-holding capacity is low.

� Hillgate loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (HgA): Areas vary in size and shape from place to place but are very smooth. The soil is well drained. Runoff is slow, and permeability is slow to very slow. Available water-holding capacity is low. Movement of water and roots through the soil is restricted by the dense subsoil. There is little or no erosion.

� Kimball loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes (KpB): The soil is gently sloping. Runoff is slow to medium, and the hazard of sheet and gully erosion is slightly moderate. The soil is well-drained loam, and the subsoil is clay.

� Arbuckle gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes (Ava): Soil is gently sloping, well drained, and gravelly. Runoff is slow, and permeability is moderate to moderately rapid. The available water-holding capacity is moderate. There is no erosion hazard.

� Riverwash (Rr): Riverwash consists of channels of intermittent streams and active streams where the water is high. The areas are made up of deposits of sand and gravel.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 3

Page 15: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

AvA

CxB

2

CxB

2

AvA

KpA

HgA

Ay

KoB

Cw

B

Rr

HgA

KpA

KpA

Ay

HgA

AcA

Ay

KpA

Mf

KpA

Ay

CxB

2

KoA

Cc

KpA

KoA

Cw

B

KpA

Cw

B

PkA

KpB

HgA

CyB

AcA

HgA

HgA

AcA

HgB

Rb

HgB

PkA

HgA

AcA

Aw

Cw

B

HgA

KoB

Aw

Rg

Czs

Rr

Mc

AyH

gA

AvA

Czx

Czm

NrD

HgA

PkA

AvA

AcA

Rb

Cz

KpA

AcA

Czs

AvA

AcA

AvA

AcA

AcA

AcA

AcA

AcA

KoA

AvA

Aw

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

SOIL

S

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e8_S

oils

.mxd

Soil

Map

Uni

t

Proj

ect

Boun

dary

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

SOU

RCE:

NAI

P 20

05;

NRC

S 20

04

FIG

URE

8

Page 16: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

� Altamont clay, terrace, 0 to 3 percent slopes (Aca): Surface is smooth but rounded, and slopes are gentle. Drainage is good. During the first rains, water intake is rapid, but when the soil expands, cracks close and intake of water slows. Runoff from moist soil is slow to moderate. During high rainfall periods, the soil may slip.

Geology The project area is located within the Great Valley geomorphic province. The predominant geologic unit in this area is the Upper Pliocene Nonmarine, which characteristically contains formed, rounded hills with moderate relief. It is composed of fluvial sedimentary deposits of semi-consolidated pale green, gray and tan sands, tuffaceous sands, silts, and clays with minor discontinuous gravel lenses and lenses of pebble and cobble conglomerates. The Great Valley Province is a sedimentary basin approximately 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, located throughout the central portion of California. In the watershed, the province is characterized by a thick deposit of moderately deformed Jurassic and Cretaceous marine sedimentary layers that consist of detrital materials derived from uplifted basement rocks of the Klamath Mountain and Coast Range Provinces. Great Valley rocks consist primarily of mudstone, shale, and sandstone and occur mostly along the west side of the central valley. These units yield an abundance of suspended sediment but relatively little gravel to drainages. The faults in the area are the Willows, Corning, and the Red Bluff faults. The Willows Fault system is a northwest trending, steeply east-dipping reverse fault (east side up movement). The fault system lies just west of the Orland Buttes extending northwest near the town of Red Bank. Fault activity is noted as occurring between approximately 60 and 53 million years ago. The Corning Fault is oriented roughly north-south along the Interstate-5 corridor. The fault has been identified from Red Bluff south through Orland, where it turns in a southwesterly direction before intersecting the Paskenta Fault Zone southwest of Artois. The Corning Fault is a reverse fault, dipping steeply to the east and passing west of the Corning domes and the Green Wood anticline. The youngest deposits deformed by the Corning Fault are noted as gravels of the Red Bluff Formation. The Red Bluff Fault extends in a northeasterly direction through Red Bluff. The fault is a subsurface structure interpreted as showing approximately 450 feet of vertical offset (south side down) from seismic-reflection data. These inactive faults typically present no particular geologic or seismic hazards. Topography The topography of the project site is very characteristic of the valley floor conditions, with steady rolling hills supporting introduced annual grasslands and sparse trees. The site is comparatively flat to the steeper and more vegetated nearby western foothills. Elevations within the project area range from 215 to 270 feet above mean sea level. The USGS topographic map of the project area was shown on Figure 2.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 4

Page 17: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Climate The Mediterranean climate of this area is characterized by warm to hot dry summers and cool wet winters. Temperature ranges in this area differ from lower elevations to the high elevations of the mountains to the west. Average monthly precipitation in Corning varies between 0.06 inches in July to 4.3 inches in January. Average monthly temperatures range between a low of 54.2ºF in January to 95.2ºF in July. In the Corning area, the first frost typically occurs during the first week of December, and the last frost occurs during the first week of March. There are approximately 275 frost-free days per year. Figure 9 presents the average minimum and maximum temperatures by month for the Corning weather station for the period of record between 1952 and 2003. Average monthly precipitation at the Corning station is included in Figure 10. Average annual precipitation at the Corning station is 21.11 inches. Biological Resources Database searches for potentially occurring special-status plant and wildlife species were conducted using the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System Database (CWHR), and the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS). The CNDDB was reviewed for records of special-status plant and wildlife species occurrence within 2 miles surrounding the study site. The CNDDB, however, is limited to reported sightings and is not a comprehensive list of special-status plant and wildlife species that may occur in a particular area. The CWHR is a scientifically based program that outputs a list of wildlife species that potentially occur within the study area based on wildlife habitats present, habitat elements, and geographic location. The CNPS database outputs a list of rare plants that could occur in the project area. For the purpose of this study, state and federally listed plants and wildlife that could potentially occur in the area are included (see biological discussion). This includes Federally Endangered, Federally Threatened, Federal Species of Special Concern, California Endangered, California Threatened, California Fully Protected, California Protected, and California Species of Special Concern listed on the CNDDB, CWHR and CNPS databases. Figure 11 shows noted CNDDB occurrences within a 2-mile radius of the study site. Hydrology Surface Water: Scattered intermittent streams with occasional high flows best summarize the project area hydrology, with a few large reservoirs used for agricultural and fire applications. Two streams, Moore Creek and Sour Grass Creek, cross the site. They are shown on Figure 12, along with FEMA Zone A flood areas. Groundwater: Tehama County has several water-bearing geologic formations. The Tehama Formation on the east side of the county supplies groundwater to deep wells. The Riverbank Formation occurs in patches throughout Tehama County, and provides water to shallow wells in the valley. The Modesto Formation is near the Sacramento River and also supplies water to shallow wells in the valley.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 5

Page 18: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

0102030405060708090100

Jan

Feb

Mar

AprMay

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

OctNovDec

Annua

l

Ave

rage

Max

imum

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

Ave

rage

Min

imum

Tem

pera

ture

(°F)

FIG

URE

9A

VERA

GE

AN

NU

AL

MIN

IMU

M A

ND

M

AXI

MU

M T

EMPE

RATU

RES

ALST

ON

DAI

RY

TEH

AMA

COU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

SO

URC

E: C

ORN

ING

AIR

PORT

(CR

G)

WEA

THER

STA

TIO

N,

PERI

OD

OF

RECO

RD 1

952

TO 2

005

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e9_T

empe

ratu

res.

doc

Page 19: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

02468101214

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Aver

age

Tota

l Pre

cipi

tatio

n (in

ches

)

Mon

thly

Aver

age

Pan

Eva

pora

tion

(inch

es)

FIG

URE

10

AVE

RAG

E A

NN

UA

L PR

ECIP

ITA

TIO

N

AN

D E

VAPO

TRA

NSP

IRA

TIO

N

ALST

ON

DAI

RY

TEH

AMA

COU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

SOU

RCE:

CO

RNIN

G A

IRPO

RT (

CRG

) W

EATH

ER S

TATI

ON

, PE

RIO

D O

F RE

CORD

195

2 TO

200

5

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e10_

Prec

ipit

atio

n.do

c

Page 20: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Bak

er's

nav

arre

tiaA

hart

's p

aron

ychi

a

Ston

y C

reek

spu

rge

Gre

at V

alle

y Va

lley

Oak

Rip

aria

n Fo

rest

Aha

rt's

par

onyc

hia

wes

tern

spa

defo

ot

tric

olor

ed b

lack

bird

Gre

at V

alle

y M

ixed

Rip

aria

n Fo

rest

Gre

at V

alle

y M

ixed

Rip

aria

n Fo

rest

Swai

nson

's h

awk

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

CND

DB

OC

CURR

ENCE

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e11_

CN

DD

B.m

xd

Proj

ect

Boun

dary

CNDD

B O

ccur

renc

e

01

20.

5M

iles

SOU

RCE:

NAI

P 20

05;

CND

DB

OCT

OBE

R 20

08 E

DIT

ION

FIG

URE

11

Page 21: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

HYD

ROLO

GY

&FE

MA

FLO

OD

DA

TA

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e12_

Floo

dDat

a.m

xd

Proj

ect

Boun

dary

Zone

A -

Are

a Su

bjec

t to

Inun

dati

onZo

ne X

- A

rea

Out

side

of

500-

Year

Flo

od

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

SOU

RCE:

NAI

P 20

05;

FEM

A 20

03

FIG

URE

12

Sour

G

rass

C

reek

Moo

re

Cr

eek

Page 22: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 6

Groundwater levels in the county show seasonal drawdown because of summer crop and landscape irrigation demands. Groundwater levels decrease during the summer with larger seasonal variations in areas that use groundwater. Areas that use groundwater as the primary supply typically show increased seasonal drawdown. These areas include AAction Tree Farm and El Camino Irrigation District. A detailed water inventory and analysis was completed for Tehama County in 2003 by Camp Dresser McGee (CDM). The dairy is located in the Corning east water inventory unit. Groundwater in the vicinity, based on DWR wells 23N03W22Q001M (record 1950-2009) and 23N03W36M002M (record 1970-1995), the two wells closest to the dairy site, varies from 40 to 60 feet below ground surface. Based on groundwater contours from the CDM 2003 report, groundwater in the vicinity moves to the southeast toward the Sacramento River (see Figure 13). DAIRY OPERATIONS

The project is the reopening of a grade A dairy that previously operated from 1976 to 2002. The RWQCB has required that the facility obtain individual WDRs as the facility is not considered an “existing” dairy under the General Order for Milk Cow Dairies R5-2007-0035 (General Order). All appurtenances for the dairy operation are currently in place and include:

� Freestall barn � Hay storage barn � Shop

� Milking parlor � Wastewater lagoon � Residence

These are shown on the site plan included as Figures 7a and 7b. The operation intends to milk up to 400 cows per day. Up to 400 dry cows and bred heifers will be kept on pasture onsite; calves will be located elsewhere. The reestablished operation has two irrigation wells, both of which are elevated above a gated irrigation system in order to prevent backflows. Reestablished operations include a wash parlor, freestall housing, and exercise pens. Feed storage facilities include barns used to store concentrated feedstuffs and feed commodities. Additional storage of concentrates and feed stocks would be on concrete slabs under cover. Storage of bedding material would be under cover in a barn. Production estimates for the facilities report total yearly manure production at 36,667 cyd, of which 24,147 cyd would be dried in a storage area for field application. The reopened dairy would also generate an estimated 87,000 gallons of wet manure per year and another 1,094,000 gallons of milk barn wash water per year, which will be flushed into the storage lagoon. Milk parlor wash water is conveyed to a wastewater lagoon, mixed as necessary with fresh well water, and used to irrigate Fields 2D, 2E, and 2F. Wastewater is not applied, has not ever been applied, and will not be applied to Fields 3G and 3H. Fields receiving wastewater have a tailwater management system that drains to a tailwater pond. Barns are scraped; manure is dried, mixed with bedding, and applied to fields as available. Manure will be applied to Fields 3H and

Page 23: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Legend

P:\GIS\70824\Figures\70824_Figure13_GroundWaterContour.mxd

ALSTON DAIRYTEHAMA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

FIGURE 13

Source:CDM California Department of Water Resources, Northern District

Page 24: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

3G, primarily. In addition, Fields John2, John3, John4, 4J, 1A, and 1B may be used for manure application in the future and are included here. Irrigation system water from Fields 2D, 2E, 2F, 3G, and 3H (see Site Plan) is recycled into a tailwater pond. Other fields have berms and/or tailwater collection areas that can be pumped with a portable sump pump. The wastewater lagoon is not lined; however, underlying soils are from the Corning-Newville series which contain clays and have low permeabilities. The RWQCB has required that the Report of Waste Discharge include a Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling Plan. Four wells will be installed to determine impacts to underlying groundwater. The dairy operations will use two well pumps with a combined capacity of 1,700 gallons per minute for pasture irrigation as well as animal and facilities wash water. Approximately 1,000 gallons of water available for recycling will also be used as wash water. As previously mentioned, depth to water in a test well near the site has remained constant over the past several years and continues to range between 65 and 75 feet. During extremely wet years, the well’s depth ranges between 45 and 50 feet. Tillage patterns on irrigated and unirrigated pastures, cropped fields, and grazing operations would remain the same. No changes are expected to occur along the banks or stream channel of Sour Grass Creek or Moore Creek. Other than minor building modifications, no significant increase in impervious surface will result from the execution of this project. As a result, no additional contributions of storm water are anticipated. All structures within the project area are above the 100-year floodplain, and there are no threats to existing structures attributable to flooding, seiche, tsunami, or mudflows. The field system is bermed to prohibit transfer of tailwater to adjacent surface water courses. Buffers and setbacks provide additional protection.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 7

Page 25: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

II. DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL ACTION BEING CONSIDERED

� INDIVIDUAL WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS

Region Approving Project: California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Dairy Unit Contact Person: Charlene Herbst

Chief, Confined Animal Facility Regulatory Unit 11020 Sun Center Drive, Suite 200 Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114 Phone: (916) 464-3291 Fax: (916) 464-4645

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 8

Page 26: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED SUMMARY OF IMPACTS The boxes checked below identify environmental factors that were found in the following ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/IMPACT ANALYSIS section to be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated”. � Aesthetics

� Air Quality

� Agricultural Resources

� Biological Resources

� Cultural Resources

� Geology & Soils

� Hazards & Hazardous Materials

� Hydrology & Water Quality

� Land Use Planning

� Mineral Resources

� Noise

� Population & Housing

� Public Services

� Recreation

� Transportation/Traffic

� Utilities & Service Systems

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 9

Page 27: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING/IMPACT ANALYSIS The following pages provide a brief description of the physical environmental conditions that exist within the area affected by the proposed project and an analysis of whether or not those conditions will be potentially impacted by the proposed project. A list of references used to support the following discussion and analysis are contained in Section VI. SUMMARY Actions that are included in the project design to avoid or reduce impacts to a level of insignificance are summarized below. Baseline The project is the reopening of a grade A dairy that previously operated from 1976 to 2006. All appurtenances for dairy use remain onsite. For purposes of CEQA analysis, the baseline conditions onsite include:

� All in-place dairy buildings � Existing irrigation wells and irrigation system � Ongoing grazing of pastureland by up to 800 head of cattle � Occupied residence

Water Quality

� BMPs will be used in all phases of project. � Monitoring wells will be installed at wastewater lagoon. � Issuance of WDRs will cover land application of waste. � There will be a 100-foot buffer from Sour Grass Creek for wastewater application. � Berms and tailwater system will be used.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project as defined under CEQA includes only the reuse of the facility for the milking of dairy cattle and the associated transfer of runaway flush water to the existing holding lagoon and reuse of wastewater and dried manure on adjoining cropland.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 10

Page 28: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Potentially

Significant Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

The project area contains scenic resources characteristic of western Tehama County in general, including gently rolling hills and agricultural settings. The project area and surrounding lands are relatively unpopulated and have been used largely for agricultural purposes for more than 100 years. The existing agricultural use of the project site is consistent with the rural aesthetic quality of the project area. The project area does not contain scenic vistas or scenic resources including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. The project area is not located adjacent to a state highway. The proposed project does not involve the construction of new structures, sources of light, or glare. The proposed project would result in the continued agricultural use of the project site. The reestablishment of milking operations at the dairy will utilize already in-place equipment and structures; no changes in the footprint of developed areas are foreseen. As a result, this project will not result in adverse impacts to scenic vistas or damage scenic resources. As the visual characteristics of the project site and surrounding area are related to developed agriculture, no degradation in these characteristics is expected. The developed portions of the project site are isolated from surrounding homes and other structures and as a consequence would not produce light or glare that would negatively affect day or nighttime views. This use is consistent with the rural aesthetic quality of the project area. No impact would occur.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 11

Page 29: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature that could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?

Discussion

The project area is zoned as Exclusive Agriculture, and the current Tehama County General Plan has identified the land use of the project area as cropland (see previous Figures 5 and 6). Agriculture and agricultural production are valued land uses in Tehama County. The site would continue to be used for agricultural purposes under the proposed project. In the proposed General Plan, the site is zoned Valley Agriculture. The reestablishment of operations at the dairy would not result in changes to the current condition of agricultural resources within the project area including conversion of Prime or Unique farmland as well as those classified as Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural use. Prime farmland mapping is included on Figure 14. The project will not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or any Williamson Act contract and will not result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. No impacts would occur to agricultural resources as a result of the proposed project.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 12

Page 30: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

ALST

ON

DAI

RYTE

HAM

A C

OU

NTY

, CA

LIFO

RNIA

PRIM

E FA

RM

LAN

D

P:\G

IS\7

0824

\Fig

ures

\708

24_F

igur

e14_

Prim

eFar

mla

nd.m

xd

Proj

ect

Boun

dary

Gra

zing

Lan

d

Farm

land

of

Loca

l Im

port

ance

Prim

e Fa

rmla

nd

Farm

land

of

Stat

ewid

e Im

port

ance

Uni

que

Farm

land

Oth

er L

and

02,

000

4,00

01,

000

Feet

SOU

RCE:

NAI

P 20

05;

CALI

FORN

IA D

EPAR

TMEN

T O

F CO

NSE

RVAT

ION

200

7

FIG

URE

14

Page 31: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion The project site is located in the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB). The NSVAB is bounded on the north and west by the Coastal Mountain Range and on the east by the southern portion of the Cascade Mountain Range and the northern portion of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. These mountain ranges reach heights in excess of 6000 feet with peaks rising much higher. This provides a substantial physical barrier to locally created pollution as well as that transported northward on prevailing winds from the Sacramento Metropolitan area. The valley is often subjected to inversion layers that, coupled with geographic barriers and high summer temperatures, create a high potential for air pollution problems. This is due to relatively stable atmospheric conditions which act to suppress vertical air movement. Common pollutants in the region are summarized in Table 1. Ambient Air Quality Standards Federal At the federal level, the U.S. EPA has been charged with implementing national air quality programs. The U.S. EPA air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), which was signed into law in 1970. Congress substantially amended the CAA in 1977 and again in 1990.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 13

Page 32: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Table 1 CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS

SUMMARY OF COMMON SOURCES AND EFFECTS Pollutant Description Sources Health Effects Welfare Effects

Carbon Monoxide Colorless, odorless gas

Motor vehicle exhaust, indoor sources include kerosene heaters and wood-burning stoves

Headaches, reduced mental alertness, heart attack, cardiovascular diseases, impaired fetal development and death

Contributes to the formation of smog

Sulfur Dioxide

Colorless gas that dissolves in water vapor to form an acid, and interacts with other gases and particulates in the air

Coal-fired power plants, petroleum refineries, manufacture of sulfuric acid and smelting of ores containing sulfur

Eye irritation, wheezing, chest tightness, shortness of breath, and lung damage

Contributes to acid rain formation, impairs visibility and plant photosynthesis, degrades water quality, results in aesthetic damage to buildings

Nitrogen Dioxide

Reddish brown, highly reactive gas

Motor vehicles, electric utilities, and other industrial, commercial, and residential sources that burn fuels

Susceptibility to respiratory infections, irritation of the lung and respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, chest pain, difficulty breathing

Contributes to the formation of smog and acid rain, degrades water quality, contributes to global warming, and impairs visibility

Ozone Gaseous pollutant when it is formed in the troposphere

Vehicle exhaust and certain other fumes. Formed from the combination of reactive organic gases and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight

Eye and throat irritation, coughing, respiratory tract problems, asthma, and lung damage

Plant and ecosystem damage

Lead Metallic element

Metal refineries, lead smelters, battery manufacturers, iron and steel producers, and use of leaded fuels by racing and aircraft industries

Anemia, high blood pressure, brain and kidney damage, and neurological disorders, cancer and a lowered IQ

Affects plants, animals, and aquatic ecosystems

Particulate Matter

Very small particles of dust, soot, or other matter, including tiny droplets of liquids

Diesel engines, power plants, industries, windblown dust and wood stoves

Eye irritation, asthma, bronchitis, lung damage, cancer, heavy metal poisoning, and cardiovascular effects

Impairs visibility, impairs plant photosynthesis, and results in atmospheric deposition and aesthetic damage to buildings

Source: ARB 2005; EPA 2005

The CAA required EPA to establish the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and to also establish deadlines for their attainment. Two types of NAAQS have been established: primary standards, which protect public health, and secondary standards, which protect public welfare from nonhealth-related adverse effects, such as visibility restrictions. The CAA Amendments of 1990 made major changes in deadlines for attaining NAAQS and in the actions required of areas of the nation that exceed these standards. Under the CAA, state and local agencies in areas that exceed the NAAQS are required to develop and implement air pollution control plans designed to achieve and maintain the NAAQS established by EPA. States may also establish their own standards, provided that state standards are at least as stringent as the NAAQS. California has established California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 39606(b) and its predecessor statutes. The NAAQS and CAAQS are presented in Table 2.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 14

Page 33: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 15

Table 2 SUMMARY OF AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

National Standards b, d

Pollutant Averaging

Time California

Standards a, d Primary e Secondary f

1-hour 0.09 ppm (180 ug/m3) -- Ozone (Oe) 8-hour 0.070 ppm (137 ug/m3) c 0.08 ppm (157 ug/ m3) Same as Primary

AAM 20 ug/m3 50 ug/m3 f Same as Primary Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3 -- AAM 12 ug/m3 15 ug/m3 Same as Primary Fine Particulate Matter

(PM2.5) 24-hour No Standard 65 ug/m3 -- 1-hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) 8-hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) Carbon Monoxide (CO)

8-hour Lake Tahoe 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) --

None

AAM -- 0.053 ppm (100 ug/m3) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 0.25 ppm (470 ug/m3) -- Same as Primary

AAM -- 0.03 ppm (80 ug/m3) -- 24-hour 0.04 ppm (105 ug/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 ug/m3) --

3-hour -- -- 0.5 ppm (1,300 ug/m3)

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

1-hour 0.25 ppm (655 ug/m3) -- -- 30-day

Average 1.5 ug/m3 -- -- Lead Calendar

Quarter -- 1.5 ug/m3 Same as Primary

Sulfates 24-hour 25 ug/m3 Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm (42 ug/m3) Vinyl Chloride 24-hour 0.01 ppm (26 ug/m3)

Visibility-Reducing Particle Matter 8-hour

Extinction coefficient of 0.23 per km, visibility of 10 miles or more (0.07-30 miles or more for

Lake Tahoe) due to particles when relative humidity is < 70%

No Federal Standards

a) California standards for O3, CO (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1- and 24-hour), nitrogen dioxide, PM (PM10 and PM2.5), and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded.

b) National standards (other than O3, PM, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 ug/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of daily concentrations, average over three years, are equal to or less than the standard.

c) This concentration was approved by the Air Resources Board on April 28, 2005, and was expected to become effective in early 2006. d) Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees

C and a reference pressure of 760 ton. e) The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public health. f) The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. AAM = Annual Arithmetic Mean ug/m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter mg/m3 = Milligrams per Cubic Meter Ppm = Parts per Million Source: ARB 2006; EPA 2006(a)

The CAA requires states to develop an air quality control plan referred to as the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP contains the strategies and control measures that California will use to attain the NAAQS. EPA approved the California SIP in September 1996. The SIP became effective on February 7, 1997. Pursuant to the recently adopted SIP, the State of California will strive for compliance with federal ozone standards by the year 2010. This will be accomplished using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs that will speed the introduction of cleaner technology and expand compliance flexibility (ARB, 2006).

Page 34: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Attainment Status Designations An attainment designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A nonattainment designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation(s) was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. All Northern Sacramento Valley air districts have been designated as nonattainment areas for the state standards for PM10. All of Northern Sacramento Valley air districts, with the exception of Colusa and Glenn Counties, have been designated as nonattainment areas for the state standard of ozone. This classification has since been amended, with Butte County reverting back to nonattainment for ozone. The nonattainment transitional designation is made by operation of law if, during a single calendar year, the state standard is not exceeded more than three times at any monitoring location within the district. Tehama County is currently nonclassified for ozone (in attainment) and nonattainment for PM10. No monitoring is completed in Tehama County for PM2.5. Thresholds of Significance The AQMD is developing air quality thresholds for determination of impact significance for projects subject to CEQA review. Until the Tehama County thresholds are adopted, Tehama County uses thresholds developed by adjoining Shasta County. Thresholds of significance are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE

Emissions (lbs/day) Shasta County Air Quality Thresholds NOx ROG PM10

Level “A” Thresholds 25 25 80 Level “B” Thresholds 137 137 137 � Apply Standard Mitigation Measures (SMM) to all projects based on potential air quality impacts. � Apply SMM and appropriate Best Available Mitigation Measures (BAMM) when a project exceeds Level “A” thresholds. The

appropriate type and number of BAMM applied to a project will be based on the unique characteristics of the project. BAMM will be selected from a list of measures kept updated by the Shasta County Planning Division (SCPD) and the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (AQMD).

� Apply SMM, BAMM, and special BAMM (when project exceeds Level “B” thresholds) based on their emission reduction potential to lower project emissions below Level “B” thresholds. The AQMD will advise the SCPD of the efficiency of proposed emission measures as part of the effort to reduce project emissions below Level “B” thresholds.

� If application of the above procedures results in reducing project emissions below Level “B” thresholds, the project can proceed with an environmental determination of a Mitigated Negative Declaration assuming other project impacts do not require more extensive environmental review.

� If project emissions cannot be reduced to below Level “B” thresholds, emission offsets will be required. The SCPD may seek the assistance of AQMD regarding other efforts and measures that could be used to reduce unmitigated emissions exceeding the 137 lbs peday. If, after applying the emissions offsets, the project emissions still

r exceed the Level “B” threshold, an EIR will be required before

nsidered for action by the reviewing authority. County, 1998

the project can be coSource: Shasta

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 16

Page 35: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 17

hazard index risk level of one or higher for the maximally exposed

heifers. The Large

peration.

and should not be a source of significant odors.

In addition to the thresholds of significance, the proposed project would have a significant impact on air quality if it would:

� Violate any ambient air quality standards; or

� Substantially contribute to an existing or projected violation of an ambient air quality standard; or

� Expose sensitive receptors (i.e., individuals with respiratory disease, the young, the elderly) to substantial pollutant concentrations; or

� Expose members of the public to frequent objectionable odors; or

� Increase global warming; or if

� TACs would exceed or contribute to an exceedance of the action level for cancer risk (10 in a million) or a individual (MEI).

At the present time, Tehama County has no specific local air regulations pertaining to air emissions generated in connection with the raising and maintenance of confined or unconfined animal herds. The applicable regulation addressing air issues related to dairy operations are those found under Title 17, Division 1, Chapter 1, Subchapter 2.7 Large Confined Animal Facilities. These regulations as administered by the California Air Board related to the emission of POC, NOx, and PM10 generated at dairy facilities which maintain 1,000 or more milk-producing dairy cows at any one time. As planned, the reopened dairy facility would process a herd of approximately 400 head of milking cattle and up to 400 dry cows and bred

onfined Animal Facilities regulations would not apply to this dairy project. C No new diesel-powered equipment will be put into operation within the reopened dairy o The reopening dairy project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors. The project location is reasonably remote (4.5 miles from the nearest town) and will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. A wastewater lagoon is a source of odor. However, given the small size of the wastewater lagoon and the relatively remote location of the project site, it will not be a source of significant objectionable odor affecting a substantial number of people. The wastewater lagoon is small

Page 36: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact

No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion Lands within the project site have been used for agriculture and cattle production since 1976 and lands in the vicinity for agriculture and cattle production for more than 100 years. The reestablishment of milking operations at the dairy will entail the use of currently in-place equipment and structures. Project work will not require the construction of additional facilities or other changes to the developed footprint of the site. The CNDDB was queried on September 11, 2008, with results related to listed species (Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Species) shown on Figure 11.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 18

Page 37: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

The following occurrences were noted in the vicinity of the site:

� Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii; 2 miles to north) � Ahart’s paronychia (Paronychia ahartii; on project site; 1.5 miles northwest of project site) � Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri; on project site) � Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor; 1.5 miles to southwest) � Stony Creek spurge (Chamaesyce ocellata ssp. rattanii; 2.5 miles to southwest) � Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni; 4 miles to southeast) � Great valley oak/riparian forest (2 miles to northeast)

The Ahart’s paroynchia and Baker’s navarretia are located on the unirrigated areas of the project site where vernal pool habitat is present (see Figure 11). The CWHR search returned 37 special-status species with the potential to occur in the project area based upon the habitats present. Three of the 37 species were identified in the CNDDB search (western spadefoot, tricolored blackbird, and Swainson’s hawk). The remaining species are listed below:

� Red-legged frog (Rana aurora) � Double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) � Black-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax nyticorax) � Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) � Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) � Sandhill crane (Grus canadensis) � Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) � California gull (Larus californicus) � Black tern (Clidonias niger) � Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia) � Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) � White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) � Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) � Sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus) � Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi) � Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) � Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) � Merlin (Falco columbarius) � Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) � Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus) � Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) � Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) � Long-eared owl (Asio otus) � Short-eared owl (Asio flammeus) � Bank swallow (Riparia riparia) � Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 19

Page 38: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

� Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) � Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis) � Western red bat (Laziurus blossevilli) � Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) � Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) � Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) � Western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis) � Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) � American marten (Martes Americana) � American badger (Taxidea taxus)

In addition to the plants that were identified in the CNDDB search, the CNPS search returned the following 11 plant species with the potential to occur on the project area:

� Brittlescale (Atriplex depressa) � San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joaquiniana) � Round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla) � Brown fox sedge (Carex vulpinoidea) � Pink creamsacs (Castilleja rubicundula ssp. rubicundula) � Recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum) � Dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla) � Adobe-lily (Fritillaria pluriflora) � Red Bluff dwarf rush (Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus) � Caper-fruited tropidocarpum (Tropidocarpum capparideum) � Brazilian watermeal (Wolffia brasiliensis)

The project will have no adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No substantial adverse effects on riparian habitat or other related sensitive natural communities will occur. The site has no natural ponds and has been under continuous grazing and cultivation since 1976. No interference with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors will occur, nor will project work impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No tree ordinances are applicable, and the project will not conflict with any Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved plan. Because cattle in essentially the same numbers have grazed the site continuously since 1976, this is considered a baseline condition. There is no change in this baseline condition; therefore, no project impacts will occur to these species. The existing riparian habitat associated with Moore and Sour Grass Creeks will not be disturbed by nor impacted by the reopening of the dairy and reuse of the wastewater lagoon.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 20

Page 39: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

V. CULTURAL RESOURCES – Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ‘15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ‘15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion A “historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California. In 1992, the Public Resources Code was amended as it affects historical resources. The amendments included creation of the California Register of Historic Resources. The State Historical Resources Commission administers the California Register and adopted implementing regulations effective January 1, 1998. The California Register includes historical resources that are listed automatically by virtue of their appearance on, or eligibility for, certain other lists of important resources. The California Register incorporates historical resources that have been nominated by application and listed after public hearing. Also included are historical resources listed as a result of the State Historical Resources Commission’s evaluation in accordance with specific criteria and procedures. CEQA requires consideration of potential impacts to resources that are listed or qualify for listing on the California Register, as well as resources that are significant but may not qualify for listing. The reestablishment of the dairy would entail the reoperation of existing milking facilities and equipment. No increase in the developed footprint is anticipated, and no ground disturbance is planned. The structures are included as a background condition. There will be no impacts to significant historical, archeological, or paleontological resources, nor will project work cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological, paleontological resource, or unique geologic features. Project work will not have the potential to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 21

Page 40: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

Discussion The project area is located within the Great Valley geomorphic province. The predominant geologic unit in this area is the Upper Pliocene Nonmarine, which characteristically contains formed rounded hills with moderate relief. It is composed of fluvial sedimentary deposits of semiconsolidated pale green, gray and tan sands, tuffaceous sands, silts, and clays with minor discontinuous gravel lenses and lenses of pebble and cobble conglomerates. The Great Valley Province is a sedimentary basin approximately 400 miles long by 50 miles wide, located throughout the central portion of California. In the watershed, the province is

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 22

Page 41: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

characterized by a thick deposit of moderately deformed Jurassic and Cretaceous marine sedimentary layers that consist of detrital materials derived from uplifted basement rocks of the Klamath Mountain and Coast Range Provinces. Great Valley rocks consist primarily of mudstone, shale, and sandstone and occur mostly along the west side of the central valley. These units yield an abundance of suspended sediment but relatively little gravel to drainages. The faults in the area are the Willows fault, Elder Creek Fault, and the Red Bluff fault. These inactive faults typically present no particular geologic or seismic hazards. Tehama County does not have any areas listed as being located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act's main purpose is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. Earthquake Fault Zones are regulatory zones around active faults. The zones are defined by turning points connected by straight lines. Most of the turning points are identified by roads, drainages, and other features on the ground. Earthquake Fault Zones are plotted on topographic maps at a scale of 1 inch equals 2,000 feet. The zones vary in width, but average about one-quarter mile wide. According to the Tehama County Soil Survey, the project area consists of seven different soil types (as was shown on Figure 8):

� Kimball loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, has smooth surface and is well drained. No erosion hazard. The subsoil of dense clay is at a depth of 10 to 20 inches and is penetrated slowly by roots and water.

� Corning-Newville gravelly loams, 3 to 10 percent slopes, consists of Corning gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, and Newville gravelly loam, 3 to 10 percent slopes, eroded. Either soil may occupy 20 to 80 percent of the area.

Corning gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, has an uneven surface because of small drainage-ways that cut through most of the area. Most of the short drainage-ways are cut by gullies, which generally can be crossed with equipment used for cultivation. Because of a claypan in the subsoil, permeability is slow.

Newville gravelly loam, 3 to 10 percent slopes, eroded. The less steep of the Newville Series. Well drained, slow permeability. The available water-holding capacity is low, runoff is medium, and erosion hazard is moderate. The clay subsoil, at a depth of 10 to 20 inches, is slowly penetrated by roots and water.

� Cortina very gravelly fine sandy loam is 50 to 90 percent gravel by volume. Drainage is excessive, runoff is very slow, and permeability is very rapid. The available water-holding capacity is low.

� Hillgate loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, varies in size and shape but is very smooth. The soil is well drained. Runoff is slow, and permeability is slow to very slow. Available water-holding capacity is low. Movement of water and roots through the soil is restricted by the dense subsoil. There is little or no erosion.

� Kimball loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, is gently sloping. Runoff is slow to medium, and the hazard of sheet and gully erosion is slightly moderate. The soil is well-drained loam. The subsoil is clay.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 23

Page 42: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

� Arbuckle gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, is gently sloping, well drained, and gravelly. Runoff is slow, and permeability is moderate to moderately rapid. The available water-holding capacity is moderate. There is no erosion hazard.

� Riverwash consists of channels of intermittent streams and active streams where the water is high. The areas are made up of deposits of sand and gravel.

� Altamont clay, terrace, 0 to 3 percent slopes, has a smooth, rounded surface and slopes are gentle. Drainage is good. During the first rains, water intake is rapid, but when the soil expands, cracks close and intake of water slows. Runoff from moist soil is slow to moderate. During high rainfall periods, the soil may slip.

The project will involve no new development and will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. The project does not change any site features and will not result in strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction, or landslides. The proposed project will not involve any new development or earth-moving activities and will not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. It will not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. The project includes no new development and is not located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property. The project site supports an existing wastewater lagoon used as a surge pond for irrigation water and to contain water from the milking parlor and barn flushing systems. The pond was part of the original dairy operations from 1976 to 2002. The pond is not lined. Soils in the vicinity contain a dense clay subsoil resulting in low permeability (KpA and CxB2). The RWQCB will require installation of monitoring wells in the vicinity of the pond to determine the impact on groundwater quality. The conditions of the WDRs (permit) will serve to protect groundwater quality and thereby serve as mitigation hereunder. The project will not be located in an area known to have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems will be installed.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 24

Page 43: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport/use/disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in there?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 25

Page 44: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Discussion Hazardous materials to be used in the reopened dairy facilities include animal health disinfectants (containing iodine) and chlorine compounds. Iodine-based materials are in liquid form and packaged in bulk containers. The chlorine-based disinfectants are packaged in 500-pound drums. These arrive intermittently by truck and are permitted for highway shipment. There are no schools or airports within ¼ mile of the project site or within the immediately surrounding area, and the operation is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan has been established for the project area. Risk from wildland fire is minimal as the majority of lands within the project site are devoted to irrigated pasture. Local fire protection service is provided by the Capay Fire Protection District’s Orland station located roughly 6 miles from the project site. Fire protection service could also be provided by the Tehama County Fire Department’s Corning Fire stations located approximately 10 miles from the project site. The proposed project is located in a rural area that contains substantial fuels (i.e. grasses, shrubs) that are susceptible to wildland fire. However, the proposed project does not consist of any activities that would introduce potential new sources of fire. No impacts are anticipated due to project activities. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 26

Page 45: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure or a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion

Runoff from the combined dairy operations would consist of irrigation tailwater, animal and facilities wash water from milking operations, and rain runoff from buildings, animal holding pens, and other developed areas (4 acres total area) of the operation. The collected runoff would be applied to pasture and cropland. Solid manure would be generated in corrals, holding pens, and chutes. The following describes how each source of manure-contaminated runoff and solid manure would be managed in order to eliminate negative impacts to water quality and violations of WDRs. Groundwater DWR reports that water in the vicinity is from 40 to 60 feet below ground surface and moves to the southeast toward the Sacramento River. Onsite wells are 50 feet deep and are screened from 20 to 35 feet. Wells were sampled onsite pursuant to the General Order. The results are summarized in Table 4 and are included in Appendix A.

Table 4 WELL SAMPLE DATA

Sample Location Date Conductivity(umhos/cm)

Nitrate/Nitrogen (mg/l)

Lower Irrigation Well 10/22/2007 351 0.3 Irrigation Well (Dairy) 10/22/2007 367 0.7 Domestic Well/SE House 10/22/2007 470 2.1 Domestic Well/SW House 10/22/2007 470 2.1

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 27

Page 46: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Fifteen wells were identified within 2,000 feet of the facility. The wells are summarized by type on Figure 3 and listed in Table 5. Hydrology Sour Grass Creek and Moore Creek cross the project site. Sour Grass Creek flows along the northern Fields 3G and 3H, and Moore Creek borders Fields John1, John2, and 1B to the south.

Table 5 WELL INFORMATION WITHIN 2,000 FEET

Well ID No. Type Location Depth (ft bgs) 2 Domestic 145 Ingram Road 107 9 Irrigation Christian Road & Malton Ave. 344.5 58 Irrigation 0.5 mi north of Christian Road 260 59 Irrigation Christian Road 330

Irrigation Tailwater The dairy production facilities will use a currently in-operation tailwater recovery system (see Site Plan) to collect both irrigation and rainwater water runoff from Fields 2D, 2E, 2F, 3G, 3H, and 3I. This system would also be used to collect occasional runoff of wash water that has been stored in a lagoon and applied to pastures. Once excess water is collected in the tailwater pond, it would be reapplied to fields during subsequent irrigation operations. Moore Creek is protected from runoff from Fields 4J and 1B by berms. Runoff from Field John2 flows to the south, away from Moore Creek. Runoff from John1 will enter Moore Creek. There are no plans to irrigate or apply manure to these fields. All tailwater collected in tailwater collection areas or behind berms will be pumped back to the head of the fields. Through use of the current tailwater recovery system, all manure-contaminated wash and irrigation water flowing through fields containing spread animal manure is retained onsite. All onsite fields are bermed, and 100-foot buffers with significant riparian vegetation are maintained along both creeks. Stormwater onsite is directed to the pond if in contact with manure. Roof runoff is directed offsite. The surface flow directions are included in the Waste Management Plan and Site Plans (Figures 7a and 7b). Animal and Facilities Wash/Flush Water Wash water used on livestock and facilities is collected in a lagoon located adjacent to milking facilities (see Site Plan). The pond is not lined but is underlain by clay soils. The RWQCB will require the pond to be lined as a condition of the WDRs. The liner will be required to meet equivalent protection to the retrofit requirements contained in the General Order for Milk Cow Dairies. The RWQCB has required the operator to install four monitoring wells in the vicinity of the site to evaluate impacts to water quality, equivalent to the requirements in the General Order. The operation of the dairy will be covered by WDRs and authority of the RWQCB, which will serve to mitigate via regulation any impacts resulting from pond use. A Monitoring Well Installation and Sampling Plan was prepared to address well installation at the site and has been approved by the RWQCB. A copy is included as Appendix B.

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 28

Page 47: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Nearby Well Information Information available for nearby wells was obtained from the Department of Water Resources and is included in Table 5. Wells located within 2,000 feet for which information was not available are identified by letters on Figure 15. The proposed reopening of the dairy, if properly operated and using required BMPs, should not violate any water quality standards or WDRs. In addition, the proposed reopening of the project as currently configured and existing will not:

� Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level.

� Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- and offsite.

� Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems resulting in polluted runoff.

� Otherwise substantially degrade water quality. The RWQCB will address dairy operating requirements in individual WDRs for the site project. The WDRs will address onsite operational BMPs for the control of the facility’s waste stream. These BMPs will include:

� Grazing cattle are excluded from streams

� Lagoon is constructed with sufficient volume to handle waste from dairy

� Manure is flushed and/or scraped from barns on a daily basis to minimize odors

� Maintain sufficient freeboard in lagoon to prevent inadvertent discharges

� Runoff water that comes into contact with waste is diverted to lagoon

� Runoff from feed storage areas is directed to lagoon

� Runoff from manure storage areas is directed to lagoon

� Fresh water from precipitation is diverted away from waste stream

� Wastewater from milk barn is diverted to lagoon

� Water is recycled from equipment to minimize milk barn water use

� Waste stream system is inspected on regular basis to ensure proper function

� Apply waste at agronomic rates

� Grade feed and manure storage areas to prevent ponding of water In addition, the RWQCB will require installation of groundwater monitoring wells to evaluate the impact of the wastewater pond on the underlying groundwater. The RWQCB will require retrofitting of the pond with a synthetic liner. The RWQCB regulatory authority and permit

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 29

Page 48: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

��

���

���

��

���

59

9

1

58

54

2

3

5556

25

19

20

222326

2115

2416

28

35

A

B

CD

E

����������� ���������������������

������������

P:\GIS\70824\Figures\70824_Figure15_2000FootWells.mxd

� �������������

����������� !""�#��#�!�$�%#�&���� �!�$�#'%#�&���� �!�$�#'

0 2,000 4,0001,000Feet

����� (���%����)

�*�� �+)

Page 49: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

conditions will provide necessary mitigation should water quality impacts occur to either groundwater or stormwater onsite. The mitigation measures required by the RWQCB will have no or less than significant impacts. All proposed mitigation measures have been evaluated. Construction of the pond liner may result in a minor increase in dust due to construction; dust mitigation measures have been included under Air Quality. Minor increases in noise due to pond lining construction are also identified as less than significant. There will be no other physical change to the environment due to mitigation. Because of the physical location of the site away from flood hazard areas and the ocean, the project would not:

� Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.

� Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.

� Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure or a levee or dam (no dam is inc.luded in the project).

� Cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion

The project site is located in a rural area in Tehama County. The Tehama County General Plan Land Use Element and its policies guide growth and the development and use of land in Tehama County. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the project area as

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 30

Page 50: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

“valley floor.” The zoning ordinance designates the project area as Exclusive Agriculture and Upland Agriculture. The area within the project site is currently developed as irrigated pasture and inactive dairy. The proposed project would not result in the development of physical barriers that would divide an established community. Under the proposed project, the project site would continue to be used for agricultural purposes which are consistent with the area’s General Plan and zoning designations. No habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans currently exist for the project site or immediate vicinity. The proposed project would not have the potential to conflict with any existing habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans.

X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion The project area is not located in an area containing mineral resource deposits that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No mineral resources are located near the project site. No impacts would occur to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project. XI. NOISE -- Would the project result in:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 31

Page 51: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion

Operational noise will occur during milking and pasture management operations and would only be experienced by dairy employees. The level of noise is not expected to exceed those associated with current and surrounding agricultural operations and would not exceed standards established in the Tehama County General Plan and applicable standards of regulatory agencies. Noise levels at the dairy will not result in the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. There will be no permanent increase in ambient or periodic noise levels in the project vicinity above those already existing at the site. The project site is not located in the vicinity of a public or private airport; consequently, no major adverse impacts from noise are foreseen. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion The proposed project is located in a rural area of Tehama County in an area that is currently developed with agricultural uses. The proposed project does not involve the development of

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 32

Page 52: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

any homes or businesses. It will not generate commercial activities substantial enough to induce substantial growth in the project area and does not involve the displacement of people or housing. The proposed project will have no impacts to population and housing.

XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES

a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?

Discussion Public services provided to the project area include fire protection by the CalFire and the Tehama County Fire Department, police protection by the Tehama County Sheriff’s Department, and K through 12th grade public education by the Corning Unified School District. The proposed project will not result in new demand for government facilities or services. No impacts will occur to public services as a result of the proposed project.

XIV. RECREATION

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 33

Page 53: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Discussion Tehama County has various types of parklands including federal recreation areas, state parks, regional parks, and local parks. Recreational opportunities include fishing, camping, swimming, picnicking, horseback riding, bicycling, hunting, hiking, and walking. The proposed project will result in the continued agricultural use of the project site. No new demand will be generated for the use of the existing area parks. The proposed project does not include recreation facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. No impacts to recreation will occur as a result of the proposed project.

XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?

Discussion

Access to the project site is by public and private roads. Potential increases in traffic at or near the project site would result from one additional tanker truck which will haul milk to a nearby processing plant each day and is considered a less than significant impact. No feed truck

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 34

Page 54: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

additions are anticipated. No impacts to publicly owned and maintained transportation facilities will occur. Ingress and egress to the site will not require any modification to publicly owned roads. No level of service standards are expected to be exceeded by this project. The project site is not located near an airport or airstrip, and no impacts to air travel will occur. No significant impacts to the public, traffic flow, or patterns along the travel route or transportation infrastructure are anticipated. There will be no impact to parking or public transportation.

XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion Residences in the project area rely on private wells for domestic water supply and private septic systems for wastewater treatment. The Red Bluff Landfill in Tehama County accepts solid waste

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 35

Page 55: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 36

from the project area and has sufficient capacity. A small increase in solid waste will occur as a result of reopening of the dairy. The impact will be less than significant. Groundwater to irrigate the pastures is currently pumped from two irrigation supply wells onsite. Wastewater generated in connection with the reestablished milking operations will be stored in an existing retention lagoon for application to pastures. This will reduce the total water demand of the project. Any excess water applied to irrigated lands will be captured in a tailwater system and recirculated to pasture lands. The project will not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, nor will the reestablished operations require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. A slight increase in power usage is anticipated with reestablishment of the milking operations; however, the power demand would not exceed previous use from 1976 to 2002 and falls within the 1990 base level for AB32 global warming requirements. Impacts to utilities and service systems as a result of the proposed project are considered less than significant.

Page 56: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

V. PROJECT MONITORING RESPONSIBLE PARTIES

The ultimate responsibility for implementation of the project and project monitoring is Alston Farms. Contact information for parties involved is as follows: Operator: Ms. Linda Alston Alston Farms 1010 Highway 99W Orland, CA 95963 (530) 864-6685 Agent: Wendy Johnston VESTRA Resources, Inc. 5300 Aviation Drive Redding, CA 96002 (530) 223-2585

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 37

Page 57: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

VI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially

Significant Impact

Less Than

Significant with Mitigation

Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS A cumulative impact is the effect on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the proposed project when combined with the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. The significance of a cumulative impact may be greater than the significance of individual effects resulting from the individual actions. This section evaluates the reasonably foreseeable potential effects of other existing activities in the area (including other planned projects) when added to the impacts of the project. Criteria for evaluating the significance of adverse effects are also applicable to cumulative impacts. The timing and duration of each activity is also an important consideration for evaluating the potential cumulative effects of activities that occur only for a limited period. In those cases, a cumulative effect may occur only when two or more of the activities are occurring simultaneously. The CEQA Guidelines provide that “cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant,” and that “the discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence...” (Section 15130 a and b). This section considers the likelihood of such impacts and evaluates any significant effects. These effects, where they occur, are then evaluated for their impact in combination with other activities in the area for cumulative impact. The impacts associated with the reopening of the milking operations against the existing baseline condition are not considered to be significant individually or cumulatively. The site was

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 38

Page 58: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 39

operating as a dairy as recently as 2002. The pastures have been grazed by as many as 800 cows each year since closure of the diary. The project results in no net change in cow numbers on the site, and the cows will be Holsteins, which is the same type that was present in 2002. The site is currently being leased for grazing purposes by the dairy operation that proposes to reopen the dairy. All dairy appurtenances are already in place. No physical ground disturbance will occur with the exception of lining the lagoon. The value of agriculture in the county is identified in both the current and proposed General Plan. Tehama County is a right-to-farm county. Dairies are an important aspect of Tehama County agriculture, being in the top 10 agricultural commodities in the county. This area of Tehama County contains numerous small dairies of the size proposed for reopening. The site is designated as “agricultural” in the current and proposed General Plan, so the proposed “dairy” site use is in compliance with the General Plan. One cumulatively considerable impact identified in the proposed General Plan is loss of agricultural resources to urban development. The continued use of the dairy will preserve agricultural land for agricultural uses. As of 2002, the county had approximately 68,000 head of cattle, down from a peak of 100,000 in the 1970s (Proposed Tehama County General Plan, 2008). The 400 milking cows that the dairy contained in 2002 were less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the cows in the county at that time. There will be no change in methane emissions from 2002 levels because there is no net change in the number of cows from 2002 conditions. Emissions on the site have fluctuated since 2002 with fluctuations in the number of cattle being grazed on the site, but up to 800 cattle have been grazed on the site since that time. Cumulative impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in the area will not be increased because the number of cattle in the county has declined over the years. This decline is likely to continue as more agricultural land is converted to urban uses in the new General Plan. There will be no cumulative impacts on traffic in the area due to the reopening of the dairy. A single milk truck will transport milk from the dairy each day. The roads servicing the dairy are designed to handle this kind of truck traffic. This traffic level is not a change from 2002 conditions. No increase will occur due to increased employee traffic because the dairy will be operated by a family that currently utilizes the land for animal grazing.

Page 59: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

VII. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT After review of the project description, the detailed information presented in this Initial Study, project monitoring, and review of the Mandatory Findings of Significance: � I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the

environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. � I find that although the proposed project COULD HAVE a significant effect on the

environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

� I find that the proposed project COULD HAVE a significant effect on the environment. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT will be prepared.

Charlene Herbst Chief, Confined Animal Facility Regulatory Unit Name Title ___________________________________ _____________________________________ Signature Date

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 40

Page 60: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

VIII. GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS The following acronyms are found throughout the Initial Study:

Acronym Meaning

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMPs Best Management Practices

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDF California Department of Forestry

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

cfs Cubic Feet Per Second

CMP Corrugated Metal Pipe

CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base

CQA Construction Quality Assurance

CSP Corrugated Steel Pipe

DFG California Department of Fish and Game

DWR California Department of Water Resources

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

fps Feet Per Second

MDBM Mount Diablo Base Meridian

MSL Mean Sea Level

NEIC Northeast Center of the California Historical Resources Information

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration

RB Rural Resident B

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region

SCS Soil Conservation Service

SSP Special Status Plants

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

WDR Waste Discharge Requirements

WHR Wildlife Habitat Relationships

P:\Projects\2008\70824 Alston Dairy\Reports\INITIAL STUDY.doc 41

Page 61: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions

Appendix A Laboratory Analytical Results

Page 62: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions
Page 63: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions
Page 64: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions
Page 65: INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON … · INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALSTON FARMS ... INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... soil conditions